I just gotta say…I’ve been fitted once before and I’ve seen/been around others and I’ve never heard anyone with the knowledge of Ian; and it’s not even close. Most impressive!
We've done similar testing of our GCQuad up against our TM4. Regarding the spin axis misses by the TM4, I believe what you're missing is adequate light over the hitting area, as the TM4 relies on its built-in camera to accurately identify the contact point on the clubface (down to the mm on both axes). Your hitting area on video looks evenly lit with the rest of the room. Ours has around 30K lumens from 10 LED narrow-beam bulbs, which we also use to record high-quality swing videos. If we turn those lights off, TM4 struggles more with accurate spin axis reads. Your TM data screen isn't showing Impact Offset and Impact Height, but I bet if you look back at those data points with your shots, you'll see a good number if not most/all are blank. If TM doesn't know it's a heel strike, it can't factor in the gear effect fade spin. We RARELY get italicized spin axis reads in our environment, using either Titleist RCT balls or regular balls with a metallic sticker.
Can you share any info on the club path discrepancies with the irons in this video? Where Driver was about 1 degree off, the irons had significant differences in path measurements (3-4)
Good to know. I often go to a facility that has almost a dozen TM4s but those numbers are often blank. They are also fairly dimly lit and they never mentioned to use the metallic sticker (I read it elsewhere so have been using it). That facility might want to spend some time in the manual. Would be interesting to see Ian's response to your feedback, should pin this comment!
@@dlwitthoft I believe (but cannot confirm) that TM is using its camera to also augment its club path reads. In our testing, both AoA and club path tend to be 1-2 deg less than the GC4, consistently, and I believe that is due to the locus of measurement (face for GC4, clubhead cog for TM4).
@@flipdawhip2573 Radar doesn't. But TM4 has an integrated HD camera which they use to increase accuracy indoors - for ball impact location on the clubface (certainly) and some club data (probably). When we turn off our bright lights with the TM4, reads get worse - particularly spin axis reads with lower-lofted clubs and off-center hits.
Old video, I know. But as a young golf professional, Ian, I have to give you my thanks as your FREE information you provide to the golf world has helped me immensely to better help the people I work with every day. You're an incredible asset to the golf world and I have very much enjoyed learning from you along the way. Keep doing what you guys do. We're all very thankful for your work!!
Absolutely brilliant, there has never been a video that goes in such depth into the differences of the these two units. I used a track man last season in the off season. And it would consistently guess spin and spin axis I’m glad they have addressed this.
Thank you for this test. It demonstrates TXG's ongoing commitment to education and only bolsters your already impressive reputation and credibility in the space. As much as I like to geek out on the newest golf gear, I find these types of videos very interesting and look forward to more.
Played with the RCT ball yesterday at my indoor trackman facility and what a difference between the new ball and the old technology with the silver dot. Trackman has made a huge improvement with indoor spin rate. Great video guys one of the best and awesome way to show the differences in the tech on both machines!
Best video ever. As a super low spinner I got in an argument with a fitter when Quad kept saying I'm carrying 290 and I said "no way, I've never hit it that far". I wonder how many people end up in the wrong combo or loft because of the juiced algorithm?
Hey TXG. Thanks for sharing this test. The italic spin axis numbers on some of those shots are all there due to insufficient light in your setup. For TrackMan OERT (including impact location and subsequent gear effect) to apply, there are certain light requirements. Around 700-800 Lux is needed in the impact area, for the camera to assist the radars. Proper lights would definitely make those outliers disappear completely. For those asking for differences between regular Pro V1 and the RCT, Titleist have ensured there is no measurable difference - in fact, the RCT ball is approved by the USGA for use on Tour.
Are you sure about this? Does that apply to faster players like Matt? Also, how does the camera account for toe down or up at impact? That makes a difference with regards to spin axis. How does it account for difference in club design? Bulge and roll can be different club to club and the resulting gear effect can be more or less pronounced. I am seriously curious to know. If you can provide some details explaining those things I would appreciate it.
Im a 4th year student doing my dissertation on my own golf ball launcher and ive learned its ideally down to the fact GCQuad uses 4 cameras(Quad) that takes 10,000 pictures per second to determine the impact, statistics and launch of the ball, Whereas the Trackman uses microwave radar sensors to capture the data, Trackman will always work better outdoors as it requires the open environment(less bouncing of waves), also the GCQuad will differ on the time of day but it does take its pictures in black and white, sun might be a factor for it. This is why some fitters put little dot stickers on your club and ball to help capture data more accurately for radar based launchers, so this new ball just replaces that aspect, wont be 100% but will get you close. Hope this helps.
Retro reflective sickers on your club are used for photometric LM like the quad to measure club info. Zero to do with ball capture. Metallic stickers on the ball are used by radar systems with limited ball flight to help capture spin/axis (like a TM indoors). This ball is made to eliminate the need for the dot on the ball and improve spin measurement accuracy.
Really appreciate this insight - it demonstrates and explains a lot of the differences. Also thanks for the community comments below on lighting etc. as potential factors in seeing different numbers. We're all better informed consumers when this type of discussion happens (I'm a career tech marketer!).
I work at an indoor golf facility and I will be purchasing these for all of my practice sessions. I never trusted the spin rates from the trackman we use but after this test I am fully convinced its worth the $65/dozen
Excellent video. However the test can be more thorough and provide more insight if 1) always show the impact location displayed by GCQUAD; 2) have better lighting so TrackMan can capture the impact locations especially for driver shots; 3) apply dr schools spray powder to cross-check the impact locations of both GCQUAD and TrackMan.
Agreed. A more thorough comparison in a more expanded format would be most welcome. Impact location, lighting, gofball, spin axis etc. This was very informative to be sure, but feel there's still more meat on those bones to pick for some of us golf nerds.
Great video - very curious about the club path discrepancy in the irons. 3-4 degree difference could be very significant if you're trying to make swing changes and measure path.
I had looked for so long what exactly the difference in readings between GC quad and Trackman numbers were and finally my questions have been answered. The best comparison video I've sene on this subject by far so thanks again for keeping up the great content!
It would also be important for you to use an impact spotlight for the trackman, the italicised spin axis is due to not enough light to measure impact location and affect gear effect from heel and toe strike.
Super interesting stuff - thanks fellas!! I'm really surprised that Trackman misrepresents the shot shape on some of those off-center hits - seems like a big error.
I heard during the reviews that the major thing people were noticing with trackman vs quad was the spin axis tilt indoors. As you showed when you progressed into the longer clubs we started to see that difference take effect. I know from practicing on trackman indoors with the silver dot on my ball last year my driver was just horrendus but on course it was very consistent. The main reason wasnt spin because I was getting measured spin with the dot. It was the spin axis tilt that was all over the place to the point it was showing I had a two way miss on an indoor trackman. I think this ball could be great for tuning and fitting irons and wedges. I am not sure how much I could trust an indoor trackman for a driver fitting though even with the rct ball.
Every video I always end up looking at your subs clock in the back. Was stuck on 169 for ages glad to see at 170, even that's a fraction of what this channel deserves
Feel like we need an outdoor test next. The GC Quad is talked about being better for indoor and trackman being better fit for outdoor. Would be nice to compare them in an outdoor setting too
Exactly! Foresight is great for measuring everything at impact TrackMan, based on radar, is good for measuring flight characteristics, everything AFTER impact Funny how TrackMan now has cameras.... clearly a case of "If you can't beat them, join them"
Great video! I use a trackman at a training facility in the UK and have identical numbers to Matty in terms of clubs speed. I’ve also had the issue with trackman showing a big heel strike duck hooking rather than slicing as is realised on the course. I would love to see a comparison with a normal prov1 and also a normal prov1 with a silver dot sticker. Using the silver dot seems to make the spin number work every time for me although haven’t been checking spin axis
Spin axis indoors on TM4 is a based on a algorithms and is not directly measured. As Ian says due to face twisting trackman sees that as a closed faced which messes with spin axis. Nothing worse than seeing a duck hook when you know it’s a heel cut.
I'd like to see you compare to a Flightscope X3 too. I'm a Flightscope retailer in Australia and use an X3 in my home studio. It would be really interesting to see the nuances between all 3 units.
Great review Ian and Matt! I have to echo the comments from Gungho below to double check you lighting to see if TM is measuring the impact. Also, double check in the settings to make sure you have OERT turned on. It would be great to see if this has any impact on your results. It seems everything is perfect until you get to the driver given the bulge on the face. I suspect the numbers will still be a different, but would be good to see how close they get when you are getting the OERT working correctly (Also, need to ensure that the lighting does flicker. Ian, you also mention IP and just wanted to note that TM's patent on this ball actually expired in April of 2020 and the insert within the ball does look a little like what TM had in its patent. Thus, I think other ball manufacturers will maybe come to the market if it is big enough.
Do you guys know if you are measuring impact location with the lighting in the current studio? If missing impact location due to low lighting conditions on TM4 then gear effect is not being taken into account with ball flight. Would be interested to see a re test regarding ball flight if so to see results.
What a stellar video. loved the showcase of how each machine gets its measurements with that shaft example. Really looking forward to finally getting real spin numbers with the indoor trackman!
Thank you guys for the great video. There are so many out there that are pure Titleist folks that may sway their opinion on this. I feel as though this was as unbiased as you could be.
Great video!! I was impressed at how close the sets of numbers were. I do think that there are still some serious issues when it comes to the poor representation of shot shape in Trackman. I assume that it is incorrectly capturing or estimating the spin axis. Isn't THE reason Titleist created the RCT ball to get more accurate spin numbers? I see that the backspin numbers seem to be rather close, but Trackman was often displaying the spin axis data in italics, meaning it was still estimating. I expected better performance for the price they are charging per dozen for these RCT balls.
Absolutely awesome test! Props to Trackman and Titleist for releasing this, and also to FlightScope for having the idea before as well (but great to have it in a Titleist ball). As to the speed boost from Foresight, if you take the drive with 16xx spin you would only see 296 carry on FlightScope at sea level. Different algorithms obviously, but just a note for users that the boost on low spin drives is even bigger compared to FlightScope than compared to Trackman. Of course that is calculated indoors, big unit users could go outside and track the whole ball flight and know for sure on the radar system. FlightScope guys don’t kill yourselves trying to crack the 300 carry mark indoors 😂
very 😄. Why does trackman not register club data for the partial shots? And have they any solution,Huge disadvantage is it not? And have you guys tested both without the RCT golf ball?
Thanks for doing this. Great to see a comparison. The aspect of algorithm was never addressed. They were both spoken of together as though they calculate flight identically, and that the technology tracks things different. The algorithm was the issue with GCQuad on the the low spin drives, not a tracking problem. The club data on trackman was the issue there. It would be interesting to see GCQuad without club tracking stickers. In the end, the raw data is key, and from what we could see, most of the major raw data points were very close, which is awesome. The variable of algorithm is the next step in determining accuracy. Just so people are aware, the algorithm of each company is very secretive, and it is not shared, and each one will claim superiority. A test out side would be ideal, so algorithmic results could be compared to actual measured distance. Then we would see if distance attained is closer to the GC or the TM. Keep up the good work! Always a good watch.
More on difference between Trackman and gcquad readings, please! Specifically, AoA and club path. I have a gcquad but practiced for a few years previously on Trackman and do feel there are differences.
Around 9:50, is the impact location captured and displayed by TrackMan? I bet it’s not. If TrackMan captures a low heel strike, it wouldn’t show a hook.
I agree with the off center hits, but at the same time I can count a ton of times where i hit the heel or the toe and the ball did not do what it was supposed to do per “gear effect”. So until you go outside and compare both side by side with a real flight with a real ball you, you wont be able to say for sure which is more accurate. I would definitely say camera based is more accurate indoors more often, but as I said I had toe strikes that DID NOT come back to target and were in someone’s kitchen.
Good test! I play on trackman indoors a lot during the winter, so I will get some the RCT balls, if I can. The face angle thing explains why I sometimes get some crazy hooks on TM indoors, that I don't see outdoors.
I would for sure love to see this same comparison done outside on a calm day. To see the actual ball flight, distance measured with a laser, and especially ball flight comparisons would be truly welcome for most of us that have a good sense of these machines. To see which parameters these units truly get consistently accurate would also benefit comparisons done with other indoor launch monitors as well. With so many RUclips driver comparisons and testing/reviews (using gc quads) with players with sub 2200 spin readings- it would seem that judging them on carry distance isn’t as accurate as we are led to believe. Sure everything is comparable, but I would truly be interested in seeing the actual numbers (carry distance)/actual ball flight vs calculated numbers (carry distance)/ and calculated ballflight. Maybe revisit this in late April next year outdoors.
I've been fit on trackman a couple times. It always has me hitting big sweeping hooks. In real life, I do not hit big sweeping hooks, I actually it the ball fairly straight. Now I dunno if it is just me in the fitting doing some weird moves indoors or if the trackman is over-reading my inside delivery and calculating hooks.
Thanks for completing this test - very comprehensive and fun to watch. We can see that there are no estimated spin rates when using the RCT balls and that the spins rates between the two systems are very consistent. What I am curious to compare is the different in the spin rate readings between ProVs (metallic sticker) and the RCT balls. Are the non-italic spin readings just as accurate as the RCT golf balls? Since we can't hit two balls with one swing it's tougher to come up with a reliable test. Only way I can think of testing this would be to use GC as the base comparison and hit ProVs with the metallic stickers and compare them with GC spin rates - but only looking at the non-italic spin rates. This would isolate the analysis so we can compare spin rates of metallic stickers essentially to the RCT product. If all of a sudden we see a gap in the spin rates using the metallic stickers than we could conclude that RCT produces more accurate spin rates AND fewer estimates. This would be significant because I think many Trackman users can live with a few spin rate estimates but if we can conclude that ALL spin rates are more accurate and there are fewer estimates than I think that's a huge change of focus.
We have 2 Trackman launch monitors at my club, and I can tell you from experience this is needed. Weird spin results (or no measurement) yield weird ball flight projection. This happens often. I'm looking forward to using this new ball.
Does trackman have any 'mode' for golf ball testing, i.e aerodynamics? That is the one area where it should be superior when used outside as it can track a longer part of the flight.
Haven't hit in quad but have on TM and have definitely noticed some odd curvature. Give me a 7 iron and 100 balls and I might fade 2 of them in real life, while on TM (or HD golf sim) I can basically fade it on command. But after a few times I've learned to not take those reading seriously and more importantly distances are on. Very cool video and thanks again for the information lads!
Great test. Spin is one thing but strike on face is something trackman will never truly sort unless they add a front based camera. I remember being fitted indoor on trackman and knowing purely by strike it was a slice and trackman threw up low hook….. Would love to see a trackman v foresight v actual on a range. Might be a bit time consuming with a spotter marking actuals vs LM numbers in terms of Carry and totals
Enjoyed learning about the differences between the two systems. Played it back twice as I wasn't sure and still not sure about the part this ball plays in this?
I noticed on all shots with the wedge that TM read the club speed lower than the GC. @5:49 the difference was 5mph (87 vs 92). That's a big difference at those speeds. Any idea why? The second shot with the 7 iron was also 2.2 mph different and the difference in shot shape is difficult to reconcile. If I were working on my swing and saw the draw displayed by the GCQuad on that 7 iron shot yet the TM indicated a baby fade, how the hell do I know which is right and what I should be changing or not changing? I'd love to see this done outside where you can see the real ball flight to identify which system is actually getting it right.
On those low spin drives (~15:10) , wouldn't the Trackman show the correct shape on the range/course? Since Trackman actually measures the ball position a long way out I don't see the "calculation" based on spin outweighing the radar return of the ball position measurement.
Great video. I feel I like 15-20 Yards playing indoors in the winter on trackman. The place I play uses trackman. I enjoy it, but my driver goes no where. I play with a friend who is a 2 handicap, he is a bomber and on trackman, he is about the same distance less in doors than outside
my miss is a low heel strike and it's a shame that the balls/trackman hasn't found a solution. when playing against friends it just blows that you get an O.B from a low hook rather than getting the spinny fade as you would irl.
Trackman has a solution. They have the capability of measuring impact location with very specific light requirements above the hitting area. OERT, the use of their internal camera to help identify impact location in order to take into account gear effect, which is what this TXG video doesn’t have. If they had proper lighting, the flight and spin axis would have been much closer to each other.
Great test. Excellent content. Shows that RCT is great, but would have liked to see RCT vs ProV1 (or other) in your hitting bay to compare RCT vs standard ball.
I'm really glad you guys addressed the differences between Trackman and GCQuad, especially the low spin bomber test. Matt usually being a low spin guy made a lot of his driver tests "feel" juiced even though its just a GCQuad idiosyncrasy.
Having been on trackman, there are times it gets very off. It does best in the training/range but trying to do a course is a nightmare. Super glad to see improvements here!! That major spin axis offages were a huge problem for me though
I find the carry distances indicated by Trackman (especially on the longer clubs) to be consistently 3-5% short of what I actually hit on the course. GC Quad gives numbers that are considerably closer (maybe 1-2% long).
Just a thought, could how you line up the golf ball affect the spin axis on Trackman? Just thinking of the pictures of the lines underneath the cover, it makes me wonder how it reads it.
Great video guys, as always, Thank you! It seems that Trackman has closed the gap indoors regarding ball data (good job!) but as a Foresight user and having compared both systems extensively before making the decission I still believe that regarding club data GCQuad is way ahead in accuracy. It would be very interesting if you could include chipping and putting as per my experince GCQuad is spot on and Trackman readings are quite poor
It has radar reflective markings on the core of the ball underneath the cover so that Trackman can measure the spin. Usually with radar monitors they need the metallic dot to measure the spin, these new markings are better than the dot.
I was fitted by Ping on a GC2 five years ago driver swing speed was 94 mph fitted by TaylorMade on Trackman this year driver swing speed was 90 mph. I still hit Irons and woods same distance on course as five years ago. Driver carry was 220 yards on GC2 and only 200 yards on trackman ballspeed was 135 mph on both
really interesting that even between the absolute top end, that there is discrepencies. Just goes to show that nothing is abolutely perfect when you are in a simulated environment.
Is there a ball that's good for Uneekor QED simulators? I have one of those in my condo. It seems to never pick up the ball spin. I see that there are balls on their website, but the shipping to Toronto, Canada is just stupidly high.... or should I just use a Sharpie and draw a bunch of dots on balls?
I just gotta say…I’ve been fitted once before and I’ve seen/been around others and I’ve never heard anyone with the knowledge of Ian; and it’s not even close. Most impressive!
It's hard to find a similar passion to perfect the data as Ian strives to!
We've done similar testing of our GCQuad up against our TM4. Regarding the spin axis misses by the TM4, I believe what you're missing is adequate light over the hitting area, as the TM4 relies on its built-in camera to accurately identify the contact point on the clubface (down to the mm on both axes). Your hitting area on video looks evenly lit with the rest of the room. Ours has around 30K lumens from 10 LED narrow-beam bulbs, which we also use to record high-quality swing videos. If we turn those lights off, TM4 struggles more with accurate spin axis reads.
Your TM data screen isn't showing Impact Offset and Impact Height, but I bet if you look back at those data points with your shots, you'll see a good number if not most/all are blank. If TM doesn't know it's a heel strike, it can't factor in the gear effect fade spin. We RARELY get italicized spin axis reads in our environment, using either Titleist RCT balls or regular balls with a metallic sticker.
Can you share any info on the club path discrepancies with the irons in this video? Where Driver was about 1 degree off, the irons had significant differences in path measurements (3-4)
Good to know. I often go to a facility that has almost a dozen TM4s but those numbers are often blank. They are also fairly dimly lit and they never mentioned to use the metallic sticker (I read it elsewhere so have been using it). That facility might want to spend some time in the manual. Would be interesting to see Ian's response to your feedback, should pin this comment!
didn't think radar needed light..
@@dlwitthoft I believe (but cannot confirm) that TM is using its camera to also augment its club path reads. In our testing, both AoA and club path tend to be 1-2 deg less than the GC4, consistently, and I believe that is due to the locus of measurement (face for GC4, clubhead cog for TM4).
@@flipdawhip2573 Radar doesn't. But TM4 has an integrated HD camera which they use to increase accuracy indoors - for ball impact location on the clubface (certainly) and some club data (probably). When we turn off our bright lights with the TM4, reads get worse - particularly spin axis reads with lower-lofted clubs and off-center hits.
Old video, I know. But as a young golf professional, Ian, I have to give you my thanks as your FREE information you provide to the golf world has helped me immensely to better help the people I work with every day. You're an incredible asset to the golf world and I have very much enjoyed learning from you along the way. Keep doing what you guys do. We're all very thankful for your work!!
Absolutely brilliant, there has never been a video that goes in such depth into the differences of the these two units. I used a track man last season in the off season. And it would consistently guess spin and spin axis I’m glad they have addressed this.
Thank you for this test. It demonstrates TXG's ongoing commitment to education and only bolsters your already impressive reputation and credibility in the space. As much as I like to geek out on the newest golf gear, I find these types of videos very interesting and look forward to more.
Played with the RCT ball yesterday at my indoor trackman facility and what a difference between the new ball and the old technology with the silver dot. Trackman has made a huge improvement with indoor spin rate. Great video guys one of the best and awesome way to show the differences in the tech on both machines!
Best video ever.
As a super low spinner I got in an argument with a fitter when Quad kept saying I'm carrying 290 and I said "no way, I've never hit it that far".
I wonder how many people end up in the wrong combo or loft because of the juiced algorithm?
Hey TXG. Thanks for sharing this test. The italic spin axis numbers on some of those shots are all there due to insufficient light in your setup. For TrackMan OERT (including impact location and subsequent gear effect) to apply, there are certain light requirements. Around 700-800 Lux is needed in the impact area, for the camera to assist the radars. Proper lights would definitely make those outliers disappear completely.
For those asking for differences between regular Pro V1 and the RCT, Titleist have ensured there is no measurable difference - in fact, the RCT ball is approved by the USGA for use on Tour.
Are you sure about this? Does that apply to faster players like Matt? Also, how does the camera account for toe down or up at impact? That makes a difference with regards to spin axis. How does it account for difference in club design? Bulge and roll can be different club to club and the resulting gear effect can be more or less pronounced. I am seriously curious to know. If you can provide some details explaining those things I would appreciate it.
Im a 4th year student doing my dissertation on my own golf ball launcher and ive learned its ideally down to the fact GCQuad uses 4 cameras(Quad) that takes 10,000 pictures per second to determine the impact, statistics and launch of the ball, Whereas the Trackman uses microwave radar sensors to capture the data, Trackman will always work better outdoors as it requires the open environment(less bouncing of waves), also the GCQuad will differ on the time of day but it does take its pictures in black and white, sun might be a factor for it. This is why some fitters put little dot stickers on your club and ball to help capture data more accurately for radar based launchers, so this new ball just replaces that aspect, wont be 100% but will get you close. Hope this helps.
Retro reflective sickers on your club are used for photometric LM like the quad to measure club info. Zero to do with ball capture.
Metallic stickers on the ball are used by radar systems with limited ball flight to help capture spin/axis (like a TM indoors). This ball is made to eliminate the need for the dot on the ball and improve spin measurement accuracy.
@@jeffwunderler9687 yea everything you say is correct, thanks for adding more information, more info that gets shared on this technology the better 👍
Really appreciate this insight - it demonstrates and explains a lot of the differences. Also thanks for the community comments below on lighting etc. as potential factors in seeing different numbers. We're all better informed consumers when this type of discussion happens (I'm a career tech marketer!).
I work at an indoor golf facility and I will be purchasing these for all of my practice sessions. I never trusted the spin rates from the trackman we use but after this test I am fully convinced its worth the $65/dozen
Matty absolutely striping it today. What a baller, swing looks awesome bud !!
Excellent video. However the test can be more thorough and provide more insight if 1) always show the impact location displayed by GCQUAD; 2) have better lighting so TrackMan can capture the impact locations especially for driver shots; 3) apply dr schools spray powder to cross-check the impact locations of both GCQUAD and TrackMan.
Agreed. A more thorough comparison in a more expanded format
would be most welcome. Impact location, lighting, gofball, spin axis etc.
This was very informative to be sure, but feel there's still more meat on
those bones to pick for some of us golf nerds.
Agree. It would be good if could redo and also see all comparable parameters too.
Love that demonstration/explanation Ian using that shaft, helped me understand it better.
Great video - very curious about the club path discrepancy in the irons. 3-4 degree difference could be very significant if you're trying to make swing changes and measure path.
I agree with this, those path differences were huge!
Check out Nick Taylor’s comparison on RUclips, he had similar diffs
when you are calling out the spin numbers on your drive, that's beast mode LOL. loved this vid, great information as usual
love how the gc3 is just sitting quietly in the backgound at the 2:56 mark
You fellas do such a good job making all the golf tech digestible and useful .
I had looked for so long what exactly the difference in readings between GC quad and Trackman numbers were and finally my questions have been answered. The best comparison video I've sene on this subject by far so thanks again for keeping up the great content!
It would also be important for you to use an impact spotlight for the trackman, the italicised spin axis is due to not enough light to measure impact location and affect gear effect from heel and toe strike.
Simply outstanding gents....this is what separates TXG from the rest of the golf content providers...A proud member!
Super interesting stuff - thanks fellas!! I'm really surprised that Trackman misrepresents the shot shape on some of those off-center hits - seems like a big error.
I heard during the reviews that the major thing people were noticing with trackman vs quad was the spin axis tilt indoors. As you showed when you progressed into the longer clubs we started to see that difference take effect. I know from practicing on trackman indoors with the silver dot on my ball last year my driver was just horrendus but on course it was very consistent. The main reason wasnt spin because I was getting measured spin with the dot. It was the spin axis tilt that was all over the place to the point it was showing I had a two way miss on an indoor trackman. I think this ball could be great for tuning and fitting irons and wedges. I am not sure how much I could trust an indoor trackman for a driver fitting though even with the rct ball.
Every video I always end up looking at your subs clock in the back. Was stuck on 169 for ages glad to see at 170, even that's a fraction of what this channel deserves
Feel like we need an outdoor test next. The GC Quad is talked about being better for indoor and trackman being better fit for outdoor. Would be nice to compare them in an outdoor setting too
Exactly!
Foresight is great for measuring everything at impact
TrackMan, based on radar, is good for measuring flight characteristics, everything AFTER impact
Funny how TrackMan now has cameras.... clearly a case of "If you can't beat them, join them"
Don’t really think we need an outdoor test. Quad is obviously better indoors and TM is better outdoors. Just based on their technology
So happy to have this going into winter at my club.
Great video! I use a trackman at a training facility in the UK and have identical numbers to Matty in terms of clubs speed. I’ve also had the issue with trackman showing a big heel strike duck hooking rather than slicing as is realised on the course.
I would love to see a comparison with a normal prov1 and also a normal prov1 with a silver dot sticker. Using the silver dot seems to make the spin number work every time for me although haven’t been checking spin axis
Spin axis indoors on TM4 is a based on a algorithms and is not directly measured. As Ian says due to face twisting trackman sees that as a closed faced which messes with spin axis. Nothing worse than seeing a duck hook when you know it’s a heel cut.
This is what I come to the lads for... Peak TXG!
Thanks for doing this Ian and Matt. Very informative.
I'd like to see you compare to a Flightscope X3 too. I'm a Flightscope retailer in Australia and use an X3 in my home studio. It would be really interesting to see the nuances between all 3 units.
Great review Ian and Matt! I have to echo the comments from Gungho below to double check you lighting to see if TM is measuring the impact. Also, double check in the settings to make sure you have OERT turned on. It would be great to see if this has any impact on your results. It seems everything is perfect until you get to the driver given the bulge on the face. I suspect the numbers will still be a different, but would be good to see how close they get when you are getting the OERT working correctly (Also, need to ensure that the lighting does flicker.
Ian, you also mention IP and just wanted to note that TM's patent on this ball actually expired in April of 2020 and the insert within the ball does look a little like what TM had in its patent. Thus, I think other ball manufacturers will maybe come to the market if it is big enough.
Do you guys know if you are measuring impact location with the lighting in the current studio? If missing impact location due to low lighting conditions on TM4 then gear effect is not being taken into account with ball flight.
Would be interested to see a re test regarding ball flight if so to see results.
Very nice lads, we love the unbiased opinions!
Absolutely awesome video! This is why this channel is amazing. Use a trackman in the offseason and have learned a ton
What a stellar video. loved the showcase of how each machine gets its measurements with that shaft example. Really looking forward to finally getting real spin numbers with the indoor trackman!
Thank you guys for the great video. There are so many out there that are pure Titleist folks that may sway their opinion on this. I feel as though this was as unbiased as you could be.
Thx from New Zealand...Loved the comparison!
Great video!! I was impressed at how close the sets of numbers were. I do think that there are still some serious issues when it comes to the poor representation of shot shape in Trackman. I assume that it is incorrectly capturing or estimating the spin axis. Isn't THE reason Titleist created the RCT ball to get more accurate spin numbers? I see that the backspin numbers seem to be rather close, but Trackman was often displaying the spin axis data in italics, meaning it was still estimating. I expected better performance for the price they are charging per dozen for these RCT balls.
Fabulous overview and great insight from Ian on the differences between the two
Another amazing, very informative video.
Awesome video, Ian you are the Einstein of fitting!
Was waiting the whole video to get to hear that satisfying beep that trackman makes and never got to hear it lol
Would love to see the difference in Trackman numbers with a standard Pro V and the RCT.
Me 2!
Absolutely awesome test! Props to Trackman and Titleist for releasing this, and also to FlightScope for having the idea before as well (but great to have it in a Titleist ball). As to the speed boost from Foresight, if you take the drive with 16xx spin you would only see 296 carry on FlightScope at sea level. Different algorithms obviously, but just a note for users that the boost on low spin drives is even bigger compared to FlightScope than compared to Trackman. Of course that is calculated indoors, big unit users could go outside and track the whole ball flight and know for sure on the radar system. FlightScope guys don’t kill yourselves trying to crack the 300 carry mark indoors 😂
very 😄. Why does trackman not register club data for the partial shots? And have they any solution,Huge disadvantage is it not? And have you guys tested both without the RCT golf ball?
Brilliant video and extremely well done, thank you! I love it when you guys do the more experimental type stuff like this.
Thanks for doing this. Great to see a comparison. The aspect of algorithm was never addressed. They were both spoken of together as though they calculate flight identically, and that the technology tracks things different. The algorithm was the issue with GCQuad on the the low spin drives, not a tracking problem. The club data on trackman was the issue there. It would be interesting to see GCQuad without club tracking stickers.
In the end, the raw data is key, and from what we could see, most of the major raw data points were very close, which is awesome. The variable of algorithm is the next step in determining accuracy. Just so people are aware, the algorithm of each company is very secretive, and it is not shared, and each one will claim superiority. A test out side would be ideal, so algorithmic results could be compared to actual measured distance. Then we would see if distance attained is closer to the GC or the TM.
Keep up the good work! Always a good watch.
More on difference between Trackman and gcquad readings, please! Specifically, AoA and club path. I have a gcquad but practiced for a few years previously on Trackman and do feel there are differences.
You guys deserve more subscribers.
Around 9:50, is the impact location captured and displayed by TrackMan? I bet it’s not. If TrackMan captures a low heel strike, it wouldn’t show a hook.
I agree with the off center hits, but at the same time I can count a ton of times where i hit the heel or the toe and the ball did not do what it was supposed to do per “gear effect”. So until you go outside and compare both side by side with a real flight with a real ball you, you wont be able to say for sure which is more accurate. I would definitely say camera based is more accurate indoors more often, but as I said I had toe strikes that DID NOT come back to target and were in someone’s kitchen.
Gents, based on this, would love to see how this ball impacts the accuracy of a consumer system like the garmin R10!
Good test! I play on trackman indoors a lot during the winter, so I will get some the RCT balls, if I can. The face angle thing explains why I sometimes get some crazy hooks on TM indoors, that I don't see outdoors.
the same happens to me all the time, I think I have striped, or a slight draw and it is a massive hook.
I would for sure love to see this same comparison done outside on a calm day. To see the actual ball flight, distance measured with a laser, and especially ball flight comparisons would be truly welcome for most of us that have a good sense of these machines. To see which parameters these units truly get consistently accurate would also benefit comparisons done with other indoor launch monitors as well.
With so many RUclips driver comparisons and testing/reviews (using gc quads) with players with sub 2200 spin readings- it would seem that judging them on carry distance isn’t as accurate as we are led to believe. Sure everything is comparable, but I would truly be interested in seeing the actual numbers (carry distance)/actual ball flight vs calculated numbers (carry distance)/ and calculated ballflight.
Maybe revisit this in late April next year outdoors.
I've been fit on trackman a couple times. It always has me hitting big sweeping hooks. In real life, I do not hit big sweeping hooks, I actually it the ball fairly straight. Now I dunno if it is just me in the fitting doing some weird moves indoors or if the trackman is over-reading my inside delivery and calculating hooks.
Golf galaxy has implemented trackman in almost all their stores and these golf balls get me excited for fittings
Thanks guys, great video as always! Glad I bought a Quad for sim room.
Wonder if this will work with/help Mevo+ driver numbers
Thanks for completing this test - very comprehensive and fun to watch. We can see that there are no estimated spin rates when using the RCT balls and that the spins rates between the two systems are very consistent.
What I am curious to compare is the different in the spin rate readings between ProVs (metallic sticker) and the RCT balls. Are the non-italic spin readings just as accurate as the RCT golf balls? Since we can't hit two balls with one swing it's tougher to come up with a reliable test.
Only way I can think of testing this would be to use GC as the base comparison and hit ProVs with the metallic stickers and compare them with GC spin rates - but only looking at the non-italic spin rates. This would isolate the analysis so we can compare spin rates of metallic stickers essentially to the RCT product.
If all of a sudden we see a gap in the spin rates using the metallic stickers than we could conclude that RCT produces more accurate spin rates AND fewer estimates. This would be significant because I think many Trackman users can live with a few spin rate estimates but if we can conclude that ALL spin rates are more accurate and there are fewer estimates than I think that's a huge change of focus.
We have 2 Trackman launch monitors at my club, and I can tell you from experience this is needed. Weird spin results (or no measurement) yield weird ball flight projection. This happens often. I'm looking forward to using this new ball.
Does trackman have any 'mode' for golf ball testing, i.e aerodynamics?
That is the one area where it should be superior when used outside as it can track a longer part of the flight.
Haven't hit in quad but have on TM and have definitely noticed some odd curvature. Give me a 7 iron and 100 balls and I might fade 2 of them in real life, while on TM (or HD golf sim) I can basically fade it on command. But after a few times I've learned to not take those reading seriously and more importantly distances are on. Very cool video and thanks again for the information lads!
Great test. Spin is one thing but strike on face is something trackman will never truly sort unless they add a front based camera. I remember being fitted indoor on trackman and knowing purely by strike it was a slice and trackman threw up low hook…..
Would love to see a trackman v foresight v actual on a range. Might be a bit time consuming with a spotter marking actuals vs LM numbers in terms of Carry and totals
Great video guys. It's great to see these comparisons :)
Outdoor comparison would be a game changer also. Comparing units and different balls for aerodynamics in the air.
Enjoyed learning about the differences between the two systems. Played it back twice as I wasn't sure and still not sure about the part this ball plays in this?
I noticed on all shots with the wedge that TM read the club speed lower than the GC. @5:49 the difference was 5mph (87 vs 92). That's a big difference at those speeds. Any idea why?
The second shot with the 7 iron was also 2.2 mph different and the difference in shot shape is difficult to reconcile. If I were working on my swing and saw the draw displayed by the GCQuad on that 7 iron shot yet the TM indicated a baby fade, how the hell do I know which is right and what I should be changing or not changing? I'd love to see this done outside where you can see the real ball flight to identify which system is actually getting it right.
On those low spin drives (~15:10) , wouldn't the Trackman show the correct shape on the range/course? Since Trackman actually measures the ball position a long way out I don't see the "calculation" based on spin outweighing the radar return of the ball position measurement.
That was very informative, and interesting. Great job !!
Thank you for the good video.
I am preparing an indoor swing analysis room.
I'm thinking about either Trackman or GCquad. Which one would be better?
Thank you guys for this video. That’s all!
Which would you buy if you do most of your practice outdoors? And can trackman normalize for range balls?
Love to see you compare GC3 to Trackman next. Thanks lads well done!
Quality content as always boys!!
Great video. I feel I like 15-20
Yards playing indoors in the winter on trackman. The place I play uses trackman. I enjoy it, but my driver goes no where.
I play with a friend who is a 2 handicap, he is a bomber and on trackman, he is about the same distance less in doors than outside
my miss is a low heel strike and it's a shame that the balls/trackman hasn't found a solution. when playing against friends it just blows that you get an O.B from a low hook rather than getting the spinny fade as you would irl.
Trackman has a solution. They have the capability of measuring impact location with very specific light requirements above the hitting area. OERT, the use of their internal camera to help identify impact location in order to take into account gear effect, which is what this TXG video doesn’t have. If they had proper lighting, the flight and spin axis would have been much closer to each other.
GC3 spotting at the 2:54 mark?
Great test. Excellent content. Shows that RCT is great, but would have liked to see RCT vs ProV1 (or other) in your hitting bay to compare RCT vs standard ball.
I'm really glad you guys addressed the differences between Trackman and GCQuad, especially the low spin bomber test. Matt usually being a low spin guy made a lot of his driver tests "feel" juiced even though its just a GCQuad idiosyncrasy.
Great video guys. I'd like to see the technology distances compared with actual distance out on a range.
Having been on trackman, there are times it gets very off. It does best in the training/range but trying to do a course is a nightmare. Super glad to see improvements here!! That major spin axis offages were a huge problem for me though
I find the carry distances indicated by Trackman (especially on the longer clubs) to be consistently 3-5% short of what I actually hit on the course. GC Quad gives numbers that are considerably closer (maybe 1-2% long).
I'd love to see the Mevo tested side by side with the Quad using the RCT balls.
This is awesome. I would love to see GC quad Vs Garmin R10
I would love to see you guys compare GCQuad and GC3 side by side. How much will the GC3 be affected by not reading face angle, strike location, etc.?
Just a thought, could how you line up the golf ball affect the spin axis on Trackman? Just thinking of the pictures of the lines underneath the cover, it makes me wonder how it reads it.
no the reason for the misread in spin axis is because of a lack of proper lighting which is why trackman couldn't get strike or an accurate spin axis
This was great. Will you please do a Mevo + review?
Great video, would love to see this comparison but using standard ProV to see how much the RCT ball improves accuracy
Great video guys, as always, Thank you! It seems that Trackman has closed the gap indoors regarding ball data (good job!) but as a Foresight user and having compared both systems extensively before making the decission I still believe that regarding club data GCQuad is way ahead in accuracy. It would be very interesting if you could include chipping and putting as per my experince GCQuad is spot on and Trackman readings are quite poor
Great video. Can you explain what the RCT is doing, or what is different, vs standard ball.
It has radar reflective markings on the core of the ball underneath the cover so that Trackman can measure the spin. Usually with radar monitors they need the metallic dot to measure the spin, these new markings are better than the dot.
No words just 👏👏👏👏 & thank you
Why the massive club head speed differences on driver with Gc quad reading faster club head speed?
Would I get better results on my Mevo+ with the RCT versus a normal ball with the reflective dots? Hope so because I ordered a dozen of the RCT's!
I was fitted by Ping on a GC2 five years ago driver swing speed was 94 mph fitted by TaylorMade on Trackman this year driver swing speed was 90 mph. I still hit Irons and woods same distance on course as five years ago. Driver carry was 220 yards on GC2 and only 200 yards on trackman ballspeed was 135 mph on both
really interesting that even between the absolute top end, that there is discrepencies. Just goes to show that nothing is abolutely perfect when you are in a simulated environment.
Correct
How does it compare to GC3 and is there a GC3 upgrade to make it more like GC quad
So quick on this but crickets on the gc3?
Can the RCT help with cheaper launch monitors? Like to see if this helps with accuracy on the more every day launch monitors.
Will the RCT balls improve the accuracy of a Flightscope Mevo???
Is there a ball that's good for Uneekor QED simulators? I have one of those in my condo. It seems to never pick up the ball spin. I see that there are balls on their website, but the shipping to Toronto, Canada is just stupidly high.... or should I just use a Sharpie and draw a bunch of dots on balls?